Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of right-wing terrorist attacks

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Sandstein 08:38, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

List of right-wing terrorist attacks[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

a synthesis, no evidence of definable scope ~ cygnis insignis 12:07, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:09, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:09, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:09, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep Although current version would benefit from tightening, we have an article Right-wing terrorism which defines the scope and shows this is a clearly notable topic. I don't understand the claim that the article is synthesis. It may be the inclusion of some incidents would be synthesis (if RS 1 said x was an incident of terrorism and RS 2 said it was carried out by the far right, and we called it an incident of right-wing terrorism would that count as synthesis?) but how can you say the article itself is synthesis? BobFromBrockley (talk) 12:21, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
In answer to your first question, yes, that is a synthesis of two sources. Each item added to the list can be sourced, and challenged as NOT a right-wing terrorist attacks by any other editor, because there is "no evidence of definable scope", the relevant line is

"This is a list of right-wing terrorist attacks. Right-wing terrorism includes terrorist acts motivated by neo-Nazi, neo-fascist, white nationalist, anti-Semitism, Christian terrorism, white separatist, anti-abortion terrorism, and ethnonationalist ideologies.[citation needed (July 2020)]"

That is what I concluded, something might change my mind. ~ cygnis insignis 12:51, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think we can easily address that particular cn as the right-wing terrorism article itself has plenty of sources. I don't understand the negative sourcing. If sources say all these attacks weren't right-wing terrorism fair enough, but so long as RSs do mention these attacks as examples of right-wing terrorism, it's a case by case issue not a question of the whole article. BobFromBrockley (talk) 13:03, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That is one of the places I thought to look for a reference. For example, SPLC does not arrange its extensive content on hate crimes in a classification 'right-wing' that is defined as being inclusive of the terms mentioned in the list. There is some preliminary discussion at the NOR board, where I suggested delete? a couple of days ago. ~ cygnis insignis 13:31, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Just a bias media thing trying to call everyone they don't like a Nazi. Right wing politics does not equal "everyone is a Nazis if they disagree with me". The list includes Anti-communism, religious terrorists, "anti-religious beliefs" terrorists, "Opposition to abortion", and every hate crime they could find as long the victim wasn't non-Jewish White. Some of these entries have no deaths and no injuries. Dream Focus 16:31, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The worst this page can really be accused of is grouping together a list of ideologies under the somewhat imprecise label "right-wing". It could potentially be split into List of white nationalist terrorist attacks, List of anti-Semitic terrorist attacks, etc., which would obviate concerns about a fuzzy scope. XOR'easter (talk) 17:21, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment For what it's worth, Europol's TE-SAT (their annual Terrorism Situation and Trend report, for those not familiar with it) categorizes terrorism into the following (non-mutually exclusive) types: jihadist terrorism, ethno-nationalist and separatist terrorism, left-wing and anarchist terrorism, right-wing terrorism, and single-issue terrorism (though that last one was absent in the latest report). TompaDompa (talk) 17:30, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That works, with attribution, for Europe at least. The definitions are clear enough, in this case it ends "Racist behaviour, authoritarianism, xenophobia, misogyny and hostility to lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and queer (LGBTQ+) communities and immigration are common attitudes among right-wing extremists." 2021 report. p. 80. ~ cygnis insignis 18:44, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 01:26, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I would oppose the deletion of this article for the same reason I opposed the deletion of "mass killings under communist regimes" in that I don't consider synthesis as it functions as a list article and that deletion of this article could be interpreted as partisan. The issue arises in how we define right-wing terrorism, right wing economically? socially? Islamist extremist terrorist attacks could be considered right wing but so could white supremacist attacks, also there is a time issue, would a group that would right-wing nowadays be considered such when the attack took place etc TheFinalMigration (talk) 05:02, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but remove any attacks for which there is no single reliable source which specifically describes it as both terrorism and right-wing. The topic of right-wing terrorism is itself notable, and right-wing terrorist attacks are often discussed as a group, so the criteria for a list are met. The SYNTH problem is solvable and does not necessitate deletion. The description in the second sentence of the article should also probably be cut entirely, because it implies that Islamic terrorism, which is often motivated by antisemitism and/or ethnonationalism, would also be included. Mlb96 (talk) 07:39, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As per Mlb96. Initially I was wondering if a merger to Right-wing terrorism (and yes, there is an equivalent Left-wing terrorism article) would be worthwhile, however due to the size of the article I believe that maintaining this separate list article is warranted. MrsSnoozyTurtle 00:53, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Certainly a notable article, and in line with other articles in similar context. Deathlibrarian (talk) 06:17, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Revisiting the topic a couple days later, I think that Mlb96 is correct, and whatever WP:SYNTH issues present are fixable. XOR'easter (talk) 17:08, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I chose to comment since I'm ambivalent about such lists. Like for a number of sensitive list articles, I recognize how it can be a challenge to get right. It currently at least seems to have a strict inclusion criteria, as all entries link to an existing article. It's also important per WP:TERRORIST to make sure that reliable sources have described the event as such. The topic is obviously notable (so is far-left terrorism) and whole books have been written. However, Right-wing terrorism already exists that can certainly provide the best examples of notable events. Presumably, with that article and categories, encyclopedic coverage could be enough. —Paleo Neonate – 18:50, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm not unsympathetic to the nomination; for example, there's a marked conflation between terrorism and hate crime. Nevertheless, right-wing terrorism is a distinct historical activity, I suspect clean-up here would be possible. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 11:17, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Question A number of editors have sensibly suggested that rightly raised SYNTH issue is easily dealt with via reliable sources, e.g. Mlb96 suggests every listing needs at least a "single reliable source which specifically describes it as both terrorism and right-wing". I wonder if this is necessary where our WP article on the listing describes it as both terrorism and right-wing, citing reliable sources? BobFromBrockley (talk) 16:50, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As per Mlb96 and User:MrsSnoozyTurtle 7&6=thirteen (☎) 13:22, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.